It's the economy usually. Dems win a lock as economy goes south.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Double edged sword, you cut the war out and you cause many more people to lose jobs. War is good for the economy.

Sorry, but this has to be one of the most pervasive and destructive economic myths out there. War is not good for the economy.

Riddle me this, Batman: If war is so good for the economy, why not expand the war? Why not spend twice as much? Why not draft everyone into the army if only to have them dig holes and then fill them back up?

Saying that war is good for the economy is like saying hurricanes are good because they give work to carpenters. Anarchists are good for the economy because they provide jobs for glass-makers. Termites are good because they provide jobs for pest-controllers. Death is good because it provides jobs for coffin-makers and undertakers.

Destruction is destruction. Economies thrive because of production. Destruction is a waste.

EDIT: Here's an example of that fallacy given by Gary Oldman in The Fifth Element.

=

[chomerics]

So I guess you now finally have to admit what I've said all along.

Klinton gutted the military in the 90's

Damn, that only took what, eight years?

You still don't get it Sarge do you. . .

Your idea of "gutting the military" is different from my idea. Go back and read Larry's posts on the topic, I remember seeing the problem was not Clinton, but the brass which I have always contended.

[redskinsfan_216]

I think this will be worthy of my first post. MDRedsinsFan one key thing in your definition of stagflation. That is in addition to inflation and slow econmic growth, unemploment rates rise. This is key as it amplfies the effects of a recession. I would also like to renterate that the President has very little to no say in Monetary policy. He has only the power to aponit the Fed chairman, but the president is essentialy Fiscal policy. Also if you truly want to know the direction the ecomomy is headed watch the stockmarket, as it functions as a great leading indicator.

The Federal Reserves job is to promote economic growth, low inflation, and low unemployment. In that order. Despite this the Fed has continued to cut the discount rate which is causing inflation to rise even more. In this also lies the declining value of the U.S. dollar. Stagflation is a very hard issue to resolve in any ecomny. What I find intriguing is that none of these issues occured until Allan Greenspan steped down as Fed chairman.

[Kilmer17]

What I find intriguing is that none of these issues occured until Allan Greenspan steped down as Fed chairman.

None of them occurred until the Dems took control of Congress.

[chomerics]

Only if you admit that the surplus generated in the 90's was due to raised taxes during the birth of the information age. Industry explosion drove that much more then policy ever did.

So are you asking me if the surplus was due to raising taxes or the internet? I think it was due to a number of factors, none of which is solely responsible. . .but a sound fiscal policy is what was in place. pay-go it isn't that hard to understand. If you want to fund something, you need to show where the funding will come from. That is what the democrats wanted to install, and what the republicans, got rid of.

So without a new technology or alternate fuel source, if Obama fixes this mess, then I will give him much props.

Good, I would as well

Hello, my name is GF and I've been here advocating for a non-interventionist foriegn policy for a year now. Nice to meet ya!

Ok, cool looks like we are on the same page here. . .

Here's where you logic fails. You want out of Iraq. You want to end the war on terror. You want to stop encouraging them to kill themselves. You like me, understand what it takes to win this war. We are fighting nationless radicals over ideology whose leader wants to bankrupt us (keeping it on topic). Such a war can never be won conventionally unless we are willing to eradicate and create a holocaust of their type.

Yet, you obviously support Obama or Clinton (6 one way, half a dozen the other) who want to continue operations in the ME minus Iraq. Do you see the problem with this?

I disagree that the war can not be won unless we eradicate all Muslims, I also disagree that we are even AT war. i mean who are we fighting in Iraq?

My main issue in Iraq has ALWAYS been that you can't keep people who hate each other because of a racial divide happy, one side is going to take it out on the other. It is really similar to the Israel/Palestine conflict as one side will always hate the other no matter what. If you ever wanted to rule Iraq, you would need to put in a ruthless dictator. One;. . .like Saddam. . .who fears the people into behaving. The fear of Saddam was worse then the fear of the Sunni or the Shi'ia's fear of each other. I think we are stuck in a rock and a hard place, I think Iraq should be divided into 4 countries and then allowed to trade with each other but i have resound myself to the fact that this will prolly not happen.

So why are you supporting candidates that do not hold your values?

I think there is a slim possibility that we can do some good if we put people in charge who actually care about governing then the dollar. Maybe that is what the difference is, who knows. I do know that I liked McCain in 00, if he won he had my vote, but there is no way in hell I'd vote for him now after what he said and did over the past 8 years. So I chose Obama, the lesser of two evils, but one that I believe can make a difference and reel in the government from being an out of control beast under the Bushies.

[redskinsfan_216]

None of them occurred until the Dems took control of Congress.

This may be true, but the issue with economy could have been predicted. The currnet situation is due to the Mortgage cirsis. Now what is the cause of this cirsis, sub-prime lending. An issue Greenspan never addressed. I think Greenspan knew that this was comming . He left his position to avoid the scrutiny of congress and the media. So this makes the current ecnonmy neither the Democrates or Republicans fault.

[chomerics]

Um, you do realize that traditionally Republicans favor smaller government and less spending? Bush cut taxes the last time in 2001 and 2002 to stimulate the economy that began to spurt under Clinton. I do think that Bush spends much more than he should, but it is what it is. What makes you think Hillary or Obama will spend much less than Bush? If they close the deficit, it'll be through raising taxes, something that drives an already staggering economy through the ground.

What was bush's rationale for cutting taxes in 2000? Do you remember? He was cutting taxes because we the government had too much money :doh: yea, we were actually above the curve, and he cut taxes because of it.

now, in hindsight, he cut taxes for absolutely the WRONG reason, and by shear luck, and ignorance, it worked out. The tax cuts did stimulate the economy (like they are supposed to) but the REASONING for the cuts was not because of a recession. In fact the reasoning was opposite.

Do you remember the graphs he used? he predicted that the tax cuts would be paid for because he predicted the EXACT SAME GROWTH over the next 10 years as it did for the previous 8. Yep, our country grew economy grew faster then it has ever grown, and he used that time period projected out for 10 years to justify tax cut.

Again, in hindsight it worked, but it was for the wrong reasons entirely.

Double edged sword, you cut the war out and you cause many more people to lose jobs. War is good for the economy.

WOW, just WOW. . .I find it simply amazing that people forget history. . .I don't think I have come across a more moronic statement here in a while. . .

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

From Eisenhower's farewell address. . .

Yeah, I'd like to see the data you have. Take into account the fact that spending has increased with each administration period because of inflation.

I just placed the graph on page one, DID YOU MISS IT??????????????

MY GOD :doh: Does it get any plainer as to who spends more and who saves more??? Is there even a question???

Look at the past 30 years for a historical prospective, and tell me who is better fiscally for our country. It is right there in the graph I presented on page 1 :doh:

Um, I don't know what I did to deserve such an attack. Actually, I am an econ major almost finished with school, so I've had enough econ 101 shoved down my throat.

As I mentioned in the thread later I got was thinking of deflation not stagflation, and admitted my error.

Again, another attack not warranted. Democrats traditionally favor increased domestic spending. Bush and Reagan are generally the only Republicans who spent through the roof, and both spent that money trying to defend our country. I read your post above, and it looks like you don't know what stagflation is. See my definition above. I wasn't alive in 1983, but you didn't provide any data to contradict what I said. I admit Reagan and Bush were high spenders, but they did it on international projects dedicated to the defense of our homeland. Clinton threw away the military and spent money on domestic initiatives.

Clinton "threw away the military"??? Are you serious? Do you actually believe what you said??

This was about who is more responsible with money. To which I post a graph, show you data, and give you 100% proof positive that a democrat is more fiscally sound then a republican. Your response is "well, over the past 25 years or so, republicans have spent like it was going out of style, but pay no attention to that, because that isn't the issue. The issue is that democrats spend more" When there is not a single shred of evidence to prove your case.

Here is the gist of your argument, and spending. Republicans like to blow crap up and kill, so they like a big military and big toys. They like to watch war on TV and extole their manhood through the power of government because of a lack of a big penis.

Democrats, on the other hand don't care much for war, and thing it should only happen when absolutely necessary. We believe in taking care of the sick, the elderly, the children, and the indigent people in society. We think that the military budget being double the entire EU's budget is too much, and we would like to streamline the outrageous military industrial complex.

They both spend money, the democrats are better at it then the republicans. They watch where the money goes, and make sure our OWN citizens are taken care of instead of our rich buddies in Saudi Arabia. They are fiscally frugal, and sound. The last 15 years of data tells me that. I can look it up and see who spends what and on what, as well as how they run things.

I like the democrats way because they actually *gasp* KNOW how to run a government. I mean why give the keys of the city to a man who despises the city. Isn't that a republican and government in a nutshell?

[chomerics]

I think either Greenspan knew that this was comming or was just a great Chairman. The first of the two is probably more likely. He left his position to avoid the scrutiny of congress and the media.

Umm. . .yea, I think you may be onto something there

Oh yea, and BTW, whas there a more moronic statement for the fed chair to make then to advocate taking an ARM when the interest rate was at an all time low (in 03 I believe)? How does he look now? IMO, he some of the blame pie in the sub prime fiasco as well.

[Sarge]

You still don't get it Sarge do you. . .

Your idea of "gutting the military" is different from my idea. Go back and read Larry's posts on the topic, I remember seeing the problem was not Clinton, but the brass which I have always contended.

Please. Need I dig up some of "Chommie's Greatest Hits" on the subject?

For years this has been the jist of your posts;

Gee Sarge, I know you served 22 years, but you really don't know what you're talking about because I'm smarter than you. And plus, I have friends that know people that are in the military and they say you are wrong too.

No, if you had to bring your own TP to work in late 96, it wasn't because of Bill, it was beause to the EVIL NEWT CONGRESS

SPIT

SPUTTER

Partisan schrilll

SEE HERE

Multiquote

Multiquote

Multiquote

Link from Kos

Link from Think Progress

Link from Dem Underground

See, they all say you are wrong and I'm right. They all say Bill actually LOVED the miltary. Granted, none of them has ever served in the military, but they are all smarter than you military knuckledraggers and know what they are talking about

Oh, and here's the site of a general that retired 30 years ago to back up my point

onelibgeneral.com

And the president doesn't really have that much to do with the military budget. It's the EVIL NEWT GINGRINCH, GAY HATING CONGRESS, not Bill, that really gutted the military.

And now today, because the circumstances fits, you do you usual multiquoting ending with this

Actually. . .the president is the one who controls monetary and fiscal policy, because he is the one that gives the budget. Congress votes on his budget, but it starts and ends with the president.

THis would be all aspects of the budget, right? DoD included, right? Bill controlled how much money the DoD received, right? He is the one that devised the military budgets all those years, right?

Congress voted on them, but it begins and ends with the president, right?

So tell me, which are you full of :pooh: on, that Bill gutted the military or that Bush jacked the economy?

[MDRedskinsFan]

WOW, just WOW. . .I find it simply amazing that people forget history. . .I don't think I have come across a more moronic statement here in a while. . .

Really, walk over to the Stadium, you'll get your fill there. While you don't get into war just for economic reasons, it is good for the economy. National output goes up, defense contractors increase jobs, the military increases those on active duty, and more people are employed. What I was trying to illustrate is that when the next president ends the War, he's going to force defense contractors to layoff thousands of employees. How is that good for the economy?

I just placed the graph on page one' date=' DID YOU MISS IT??????????????

[img']http://mikelove.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/deficit.gif[/img]

MY GOD :doh: Does it get any plainer as to who spends more and who saves more??? Is there even a question???

This graph doesn't illustrate spending levels, it illustrates the deficit gap. The deficit turned into a surplus under Clinton because he had to tax the heck out of us. It also helped that with a booming economy in the late 1990s, people were able to pay those high taxes. If taxes are raised in 2009, the economy isn't booming like that and it may worsen things. Consumer spending will decrease even more as taxes are increased, the question to ask yourself is whether this is the right time to increase taxes to close the gap, the answer is no.

Clinton "threw away the military"??? Are you serious? Do you actually believe what you said??

Yes' date=' I do believe that statement. [url']http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1993/04/art1full.pdf[/url] If you read this article, it states what you need to know about President Clinton and cutting defense spending, and its effects on employment. After 9/11, we can't afford to make these kind of cuts to defense spending. If anything, it should be our priority.

[Mister Happy]

The fact is that the government has never significantly cut spending in the last 100 years, and the last time there was an actual drop in spending was 1965.

If we ever have a surplus, it's because we bring in money faster than we can spend it.

[Mister Happy]

Every action designed to boost our economy has one goal in common. That is to funnel more money into corporations so they can expand and generate more wealth.

Corporations are the only things that actually grow our economy. Everything else is merely wealth redistribution. That includes the government, which only generates wealth when it acts as a corporation, such as building tanks.

It's not war that boosts our economy. It's taking raw materials and building ships and planes with it. The same general result can be obtained without killing people.

A bureaucracy does nothing to help the economy. It only takes money away from where we need it most - the wealth-building cycle.

That's not to say we shouldn't regulate corporations, which can be as tyrannical as any government. They need checks and balances just like our federal government, but we need to be careful not to bite the hand that feeds us.

[88Comrade2000]

How does this prove anything of the sort? The original poster is not a Democrat.

Neither am I a Republican; though I almost registered as one. I am an Independent and like it that way. Both parties care about one thing, keeping and maintain their power. They could care less about Americans.

One reason why Obama and Mccain has support. People believe they will be different and put American above their own personal gain. Whether that really happens is another thing.

[88Comrade2000]

Proof positive that some Democrats are rooting for a recession.

How sad is it that there's a contingent of people out there who want to see the economy take a hit so that a Republican doesn't get elected?

Pathetic.

They are conservative Republicans like talk show host Bill Cunningham who want Mccain to lose. Then pray that a Obama or Clinton adminstration fails so badly that Conservative retake power in 2012.

[chomerics]

This graph doesn't illustrate spending levels, it illustrates the deficit gap. The deficit turned into a surplus under Clinton because he had to tax the heck out of us. It also helped that with a booming economy in the late 1990s, people were able to pay those high taxes.

I gave you data which backed my opinion, to which you ignored it. That is ok, it is your ONLY option, you ONLY One.

Lies, lies and absolute BULL :pooh: Did you know Clinton actually CUT the capital gains tax??? Do you even know that the tax rate was in 96? All you do is sprout the absolute BS and party one liners without understanding a single thing about how government operates, what their revenue streams are, how they spend money and how they run everything.

Did you or did you not know that Clinton cut capital gains tax? Was that a tax increase or a tax decrease?

If taxes are raised in 2009, the economy isn't booming like that and it may worsen things. Consumer spending will decrease even more as taxes are increased, the question to ask yourself is whether this is the right time to increase taxes to close the gap, the answer is no.

How do you know what the economy is going to be like 2 years from now? heck, your party has screwed my generation and my kids generation over for the next 20 years by giving welfare to billionaires!!! Yes, they are THE welfare party of billionaires. . . it is just that people like yourself don't want to look at it as welfare, because when you give a rich person money, it is "stimulating the economy" but when you give a poor person money it is "welfare"

Welfare is welfare, you're standing knee deep in it, so you better get a helmet.

Yes, I do believe that statement. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1993/04/art1full.pdf If you read this article, it states what you need to know about President Clinton and cutting defense spending, and its effects on employment. After 9/11, we can't afford to make these kind of cuts to defense spending. If anything, it should be our priority.

OMG, yet another drone who things the US spending over double what the entire EU does in defense is a good thing :doh:

Man oh man, what a joke these people are. They advocate small government, yet want to expand the military and government. They say they want to decrease spending, yet they increase it 10X as much as any democrat has in history.

how can people like this actually look in the mirror and support a party that does exactly opposite of what their "core values" are is beyond me.

You know what I like though, if you want to know what a republican is up to, just look at what he is accusing the democrat of, you will find that 95% of the time, this works :thumbsup:

[88Comrade2000]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601073&sid=af3IPl3rv9DY&refer=election

Noticed a good article on this.

[MDRedskinsFan]

How do you know what the economy is going to be like 2 years from now? heck, your party has screwed my generation and my kids generation over for the next 20 years by giving welfare to billionaires!!! Yes, they are THE welfare party of billionaires. . . it is just that people like yourself don't want to look at it as welfare, because when you give a rich person money, it is "stimulating the economy" but when you give a poor person money it is "welfare"

Welfare is welfare, you're standing knee deep in it, so you better get a helmet.

I just want to clarify one thing. Can you honestly sit here and say that redistributing wealth equally by taking money from the rich and reallocating it to the poor is going to make us better off? It is the rich you claim to hate after all, who do create the majority of jobs in this country, like it or not. Their selfishness benefits us all. But when you take money from them, that's less jobs they can create, and hurts us in a different way. The reason it is "stimulating the economy" to give money to the rich, is that they are most likely to use it to purchase durable goods, a market really hurting with the credit crunch. You give that money to the poor, and they'll either pocket the money for fear of needing it in the future (worst case scenario) or spend it on purchasing additional inferior goods (not as good as spending on durable goods).

Another thing, welfare had the potential, and still does, to be a successful program. But without proper policing, it will continue be abused and cost all of us more money, not just the rich. Europe has high unemployment rates, and the main reason is because their unemployment benefits are so lucrative that it makes it worth your while to sit around at home. If we put more limits on who is allowed to use welfare, like limiting it to folks who are actively searching for employment and putting a timelimit of 6 months per individual, then it might be a better program.

[Kosher Ham]

No, but giving that same money to the middle class and small business owners might be more useful than either of those other groups.

So you suggest setting up welfare basically the same as unemployment ? Tell me more, that has potential.

[MDRedskinsFan]

No, but giving that same money to the middle class and small business owners might be more useful than either of those other groups.

So you suggest setting up welfare basically the same as unemployment ? Tell me more, that has potential.

What I'm saying here, is that welfare is basically setup to provide short term benefits to the poor, or otherwise unemployed. However, under the current program, lots of money is wasted on providing benefits for "deadbeats." Not all poor people fall under this definition, this is just poor people who decide that they're too lazy to find employment, and will simply accept a government check every week. We could have the ability to provide better benefits to fewer people, and if each individual is limited to 6 months, that should be enough time to find some job. While some may not be able to obtain a job, if they can prove factually that they are searching for a job, and not just reaping the benefits of the program, then the benefits could be extended on a monthly basis. It hopefully will encourage people who don't fit this definition of unemployed currently to get active in their search for jobs, and encourage each person to better themselves. All this country should be required to provide is the opportunity to succeed. We can't guarantee success to every individual, as that is a plain unrealistic goal. And like with any program, this one needs to be strictly governed to ensure its success. But in my opinion, this is much more productive than the current welfare program we have now.

[Kosher Ham]

As far as I know, Unemployment requires you to look for work, you are supposed to provide places where you interviewed and sought employment. Yet the problem I find is that many times there is no follow-up on the other end. Meaning, I can say I went to job X to look for work, but the Unemployment office doesn't confirm that it is true.

Welfare and Unemployment are not the same thing. Everyone on welfare is not jobless. Actually most have jobs as far as I know.

Bottom line for me is that there is too much money spent on things we don't need, and not enough spent on things we do need.

[techboy]

Answer the phone "Vandelay industries"!

[Bang]

I just want to clarify one thing. Can you honestly sit here and say that redistributing wealth equally by taking money from the rich and reallocating it to the poor is going to make us better off? It is the rich you claim to hate after all, who do create the majority of jobs in this country, like it or not. Their selfishness benefits us all. But when you take money from them, that's less jobs they can create, and hurts us in a different way. The reason it is "stimulating the economy" to give money to the rich, is that they are most likely to use it to purchase durable goods, a market really hurting with the credit crunch. You give that money to the poor, and they'll either pocket the money for fear of needing it in the future (worst case scenario) or spend it on purchasing additional inferior goods (not as good as spending on durable goods).

This would make a hell of a lot more sense to me if the people at the tops of the corporations would take a slight decrease in their own ridiculously luxurious lifestyles, take a tiny cut in their retirement packages that usually equal more than one of their average workers could make in 30 years. Maybe if it happened that a company making layoffs would ever show that the people at the top took some cuts to try to headoff layoffs within their own company, then I'd buy into it. But they don't. It is not unusual at all for a company these days to layoff 1000 workers, and increase the benefits package of the CEO in the same year.

These giant corps that stimulate the economy in the way you say have so many resources that they don't necessarily need these tax incentives and handouts. But they have set it up so people believe that unless they DO get these bennies, there's no way they could compete, prices would rise, jobs would be lost doom and gloom doom and gloom. Meanwhile the CEO is sitting in a private heated grotto on the deck of his 40th floor penthouse condo plotting how to spend the gigantic bonus he and the board just voted themselves.

I'm all for a French Revolution. Break out the guillotine and let's roll some ****ing heads.

~Bang

[MDRedskinsFan]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080324/economy.html

Interesting article that talks about the rise in home sales during the month of February. We all know economic gains and losses start in the housing market, but is anybody willing to bet that we've hit rock bottom with the Bear Stearns buyout, and are starting to turn it around?

[NavyDave]

They are conservative Republicans like talk show host Bill Cunningham who want Mccain to lose. Then pray that a Obama or Clinton adminstration fails so badly that Conservative retake power in 2012.

I'm kinda in that group. But the problem with that is we need more conservative Judges on the supreme court so judicial activism is significantly reduced. And liberals can't turn to the courts to write laws instead of just interpreting them.

Then again with McCain you can't count on him appointing one either.

[Heidenreich]

This would make a hell of a lot more sense to me if the people at the tops of the corporations would take a slight decrease in their own ridiculously luxurious lifestyles, take a tiny cut in their retirement packages that usually equal more than one of their average workers could make in 30 years. Maybe if it happened that a company making layoffs would ever show that the people at the top took some cuts to try to headoff layoffs within their own company, then I'd buy into it. But they don't. It is not unusual at all for a company these days to layoff 1000 workers, and increase the benefits package of the CEO in the same year.

These giant corps that stimulate the economy in the way you say have so many resources that they don't necessarily need these tax incentives and handouts. But they have set it up so people believe that unless they DO get these bennies, there's no way they could compete, prices would rise, jobs would be lost doom and gloom doom and gloom. Meanwhile the CEO is sitting in a private heated grotto on the deck of his 40th floor penthouse condo plotting how to spend the gigantic bonus he and the board just voted themselves.

I'm all for a French Revolution. Break out the guillotine and let's roll some ****ing heads.

~Bang

Excellent post.

But we all know that will never happen.

The higher-ups are all used to these ridiculous lifestyles, and only 2 things matter to the management of a company.

1)- The bottom line of said company

2)- The bottom line of their bank account(s)